Archive for the 'Guns' Category

NR:

Ilion has a spa; a shoe shop; a trio of pizza joints (Franco’s, Sorrento, and Lombardo’s); a McDonald’s; a bowling alley; and a few more of exactly the sorts of places that you’d imagine you’d find in towns of its size. Pretty much all of the businesses rely on Remington for their livelihood. “That little shoe shop, for example,” Kollitides says, pointing, “makes all of our safety shoes.”

And so Remington tends to get its way in matters civic. “They moved the town so we could expand,” I’m told by plant manager Paul Merz. “See that factory building there? That used to be the center of town.” Later, I’m shown photographs of houses literally being picked up and transported down the street to make way for the plant.

They moved the Erie Canal, too. In 1827, the company, seeking access to the new waterway and to the expanding domestic market, switched from its original location in the Remington family forge at Ilion Gulch to a new position closer to the canal. Business boomed. Eighty-eight years later, the tables were turned: To facilitate the company’s growth, the town altered the canal’s path. “Ilion has molded itself to Remington,” Kollitides smiles.

[ … ]

I ask the predictable question: Despite the plant’s history and the cohesion of the town, do New York State’s business environment and sweeping new anti-gun legislation tempt the company to move? Some disgruntled gun enthusiasts believe that manufacturers should leave states that are hostile to their interests. Remington produces many weapons that are now illegal in New York State.

In answer, I am referred to a statement that was released immediately after Governor Cuomo signed the disastrous SAFE (Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act in January. It reads: “Remington will not run or abandon its loyal and hard working 1,300 employees without considerable thought and deliberation. Laws can be overturned and politicians voted out of office, but the decisions we make today will affect our people, their families and entire communities for generations.”

Charles C. W. Cooke got taken to the cleaners in this article.  He rolled over and failed to address the hard issues or press the hard questions.  He soft-pedaled one of the best questions, and was satisfied to be referred to a press release.

Every union shop knows that the company needs to operate.  That’s a horrible answer, and it doesn’t change the fact that union shops destroy companies.  Remington has recently announced expansion in North Carolina, not by any stretch a union shop state.

The labor pool will be just as good and cheaper than a union shop.  And Remington no more believes that New York is reconcilable with constitutional rights than you and I do.  Their press release kicks the can down the road and fails to deal with hard issues.   The notion that gun control can be reversed in New York is a fiction.  The answer is to move and leave New York to the consequences of its actions and decisions.

Their union shop knows the company needs to operate.  But it doesn’t, not really.  The bottom line will decide whether Remington can stay in Ilion.  As for me, I have begun to look for alternatives to that nice Remington 700 series rifle I wanted.  Too bad.  If they relocate their entire operation to the South, I might reconsider.

David Codrea:

“U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton last night dismissed a National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed lawsuit challenging the constitutionality on Second Amendment grounds of Washington, DC’s ban on the sale and possession of handguns,” the Violence Policy Center crowed back in 2004, before the historic Heller decision. “Judge Walton’s 68-page ruling in Seegars v. Ashcroft upholds the ban, which was adopted by the City Council in 1976.

“In his opinion, Judge Walton … wrote: ‘[T]he Court must conclude that the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms. Rather, the Amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias,’” the VPC release continued.

David has a discussion of the secret authority wielded by judge Walton that’s well worth the time.  Another from Kurt Hofmann.

The problem with that argument is that the distinction between soldiers and “peace officers” (don’t hear that term much anymore, do you?) is rapidly disappearing. Can anyone look at the massive abuses perpetrated by “peace officers” in Boston in pursuit of the surviving alleged Marathon bomber, and dispute that “law enforcement” is becoming an occupying army?

To the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, that’s just fine, with executive director Josh Horwitz cautioning us to “not pile too much on the militarization of law enforcement,” because “they have a tough job.”

Besides, none of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates object to the police being armed with so-called “assault weapons” (although in that context, they might call them “patrol rifles,” or “personal defense weapons“), which we are told are “weapons of war, that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets,” and are thus not suitable for civilian ownership. Does that not make the police who are issued them soldiers?

Read Kurt’s setup for the situation and the argument for the following comments to make any sense.

Kurt is commenting on what we discussed in And Now They Trample The Third Amendment (which WRSA picked up and linked).  Kurt makes an interesting point of logic.  If the gun controllers and collectivists argue that AR-15s are weapons of war, then they cannot rationally and consistently object to the application of the third amendment to law enforcement – that is, for collectivists who want at least the pretext of being consistent and rational.

Bob Owens has a wonderful takedown of the argument that the founders didn’t imagine weapons of war in the hands of civilians, entitled  ‘ … but the founders couldn’t have imagined more than muskets.” (I had asked Bob to give me the URL for this article several weeks ago and he couldn’t produce it, which means that I know more about what Bob is writing than he does, or something like that).

Bob’s piece is masterful and necessary reading.  Using Kurt’s syllogism and Bob’s article, it means that there is no distinction (which also means that the Hughes amendment is obscene), and both that the police are guilty of a constitutional violation and we should have access to these “weapons of war” since the founders envisioned that we would.

Turning back to David, I don’t really find it surprising that this collectivist judge doesn’t believe in the second amendment, even though it is troubling.  What I find most interesting is how he expressed his demurral: ” … the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to possess firearms.”

Dear readers, listen to me carefully and pay close attention.  Might does not make right.  If it did the Nazis were justified in killing Jews.  The fact that you have guns and are willing to perish to keep them (like me) doesn’t mean that it’s your right to own them.  Furthermore, the government – voters, rulers, policy, pieces of paper including even the constitution – does not confer rights.  The government is not in a position of justifiably conferring anything on you.

Listen again, dear reader.  If you believe that the constitution confers the right to own a gun, you will always be subject to the vicissitudes of constitutional interpretation and the latest hermeneutic fashions.

I rarely press my religious beliefs, but there is a time and occasion for it.  This is one of those times.  Your rights are conferred by your creator, and that’s why they are unalienable.  The constitution merely recognizes and acknowledges those rights.

You have rights to your “weapons of war,” and so do I.  And the police have no right to invade your castle.  And we have a right to demand better of those who would adjudicate our laws than we have in judge Walton.

Read David and Kurt at Examiner.

John Richardson (via David Codrea).

Judge Winston Kidd extended his Temporary Restraining Order against HB 2 until Friday according to “Jackson Jambalaya” who attended the proceedings this afternoon. The state argues that HB 2 only clarified the definition of concealed and that open carry is allowed under the MS Constitution of 1891.

Rep. Andy Gipson (R-Rankin) who authored HB 2 released this statement earlier today before the beginning of the hearing.

“The Amended Complaint filed with the Hinds County Circuit Court on July 1, 2013 alleges that House Bill 2 (which defined the term “concealed”) is unconstitutional on three grounds:

1) “Unconstitutionally vague” …

2) “Overbroad” …

3) “Arbitrary and Capricious.” This is where it gets most interesting. The complaint alleges that the definition “is arbitrary and capricious in excusing persons who wish to openly-carry firearms from the license requirements imposed on persons who wish to carry concealed firearms.” TRANSLATION: HINDS COUNTY OFFICIALS WANT TO REQUIRE GUN LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF ALL GUNS BEING CARRIED BY MISSISSIPPIANS. THIS IS THE SAME LINE OF THINKING BEING PUSHED IN WASHINGTON D.C. AND NEW YORK CITY, RIGHT HERE IN OUR OWN BACKYARD.”

Vagueness has no bearing whatsoever on the latitude given to a judge, or in other words, this isn’t a good justification for barring a law, and the judge has no right under the rubric of “vagueness” to do such a thing.

Same with “overbroad.”  But it is indeed most interesting that arbitrary and capricious is included, and it makes the case for judge Kidd doing what he did laughable.  Many laws are arbitrary and capricious – the legal drinking age, speed limits, most traffic laws, zoning regulations, etc.  My point isn’t that we should change the legal drinking age or amend the speed limit to 100 MPH.

The point is that if judge Kidd were going to use arbitrary and capricious as a justification for throwing a law out (rather than the more classic reason that a law does not comport with the constitution), he’s got a lot of work to do and most laws would disappear from the books.

No, judge Kidd has another agenda, and it is this agenda that does not comport with the constitution.

Prior:

Mississippi Supreme Court Denies Petition To Undo Open Carry Block

Mississippi Judge Blocks Open Carry Law

There is an interesting discussion thread at reddit/guns on whether you open carry when you hike.  There is some good information, some bad.  Take it all with a grain of salt.

We have discussed open carry before, and how laws against open carry are an artifact of Jim Crow laws.  They should all be repealed, each and every one of them.  Furthermore, see my Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense for a discussion of the ubiquity of weapons and their open carry in Colonial America.

But regarding the open carry of weapons when you hike or camp, you should do it.  There are threats in the East, from Coyotes (which can be aggressive), to Black Bear, to snakes and other threats.  In the West the problem becomes even more severe, with Brown Bear, Cougar (Mountain Lion, Panther or various other names), and even Jaguar in the Southwest.  And of course, there is the omnipresent threat of evil humans with which to contend.

The discussion thread gives some examples of threats (and also see here), and I have given an example of a man who saved his life by carrying a .45 pistol while camping.  Whether legal in any specific state or not, open carry is wise in the wilds since need for the weapon is likely to be an immediate and urgent need.

However unsafe you are in urban America, you are even less safe when you go into the wilds.  Carry weapons.  Have them at your rapid disposal.  Know how to use them.  Don’t be a victim.

David Codrea:

A three-judge panel of the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled yesterday against the state attorney general’s petition to undo an injunction blocking a firearms open carry law from going into effect.

“After due consideration, we find that the State’s Combined Petition should be denied for procedural reasons,” the order signed by Justice James W. Kitchens declared. “In denying the Petition, the panel expresses no opinion respecting the merits of the matters pending before the circuit court.”

We had previously discussed the new Mississippi open carry law and how an activist judge blocked implementation of the law for what appears to be illegitimate reasons.

With this move, the supreme court has weighed in by not weighing in.  In other words, there is no one left in the judiciary who will stop judicial activism in Mississippi.

The proper way to deal with this kind of judicial activism is to implement the constitutional law anyway and impeach the judge in an emergency meeting of the Mississippi Senate.  It’s called balance of power, and at least in part, America is built upon this precept.

Read it at Examiner.

Just a brief note on a pet peeve of mine.  I had the distinctly obnoxious displeasure of watching a man named Bo Dietl on Fox News last night discussing the George Zimmerman case.  I haven’t weighed in on this case, and probably won’t until it’s finished and I comment on what a huge waste of time and resources this whole thing was.  Circus, it is.

But on point, Mr. Dietl is apparently a former NYPD Police Department employee who now comments on television.  He was discussing guns just “going off.”  The context had to do with whether a round was in the chamber in Mr. Zimmerman’s gun, and while a round being chambered makes the gun ready to use, it also makes it liable to just “go off.”

It’s really annoying when people talk this way.  Of course, a gun does nothing of the sort.  Guns don’t “go off,” regardless of the fact that one can find an article about every day about guns “going off” and harming or killing someone.

Whether you like or dislike the “beaver tail safety” on my XDm .45 semi-auto, or any other model that has a grip safety, and whether you like or dislike the two-stage triggers that come on the XDm and S&W M&P (i.e., brush guard), the fact is that a pistol requires user interaction in order to discharge a round (excluding something like “baking off” a round because of heavy combat and high weapon temperatures, something most Americans won’t experience).

And even if a weapon doesn’t have those features, your trigger finger is your safety.  Without it, the weapon doesn’t fire.  It’s fear mongering affecting unengaged and uneducated people to say that a weapon “goes off” if you have a round in the chamber.  People who know firearms know better.

I guess Bo Dietl doesn’t know firearms.  What a putz.  Maybe he should become educated before commenting on television.  It’s the least he could do.

We’ve previously discussed the Mississippi open carry law, and how LEOs in particular don’t approve of the new law.  And yet, it is still new law, and the LEOs must honor the rights of citizens.  When progressives said Mississippi would turn into the Wild, Wild West, I demurred and pointed out that my own home state of North Carolina was a traditional open carry state.  Everything would turn out fine, I admonished.  But rather than accept the new law, progressives found themselves an activist judge who would side with them.

A Hinds County circuit court judge, initially appointed to the bench by a Democrat governor, granted the wishes of a Democrat prosecutor on Friday in an “emergency hearing” to halt implementation of a gun bill opposed by Democrat lawmakers, the Associated Press reported . Judge Winston Kidd issued a temporary injunction after Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith requested that he block a new law from going into effect.

[ … ]

“For the purposes of this section, ‘concealed’ … shall not include … a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible,” the bill states, essentially clarifying that open carrying of firearms by non-prohibited persons in non-prohibited locations is lawful activity.

In an unabashed feat of judicial and linguistic contortion, Kidd ruled that specific language is “vague,” and justified his injunction on the grounds that allowing the bill to take effect would cause “irreparable harm.”

“We’re looking at a Wild West scenario,” Jody Owens, Managing Attorney of the Southern Poverty Law Center charged … repeating the meme again.  The judge should now be seen as a lawbreaker himself, because there is nothing in the Mississippi constitution that allows a judge to override the legislature and Governor just because he doesn’t read as clearly as we do.

The judge should be impeached, and as for the claim that Mississippi would turn into the Wild, Wild West, I think that the fear is exactly the opposite.  I think that everyone knows that nothing untoward will occur, and thus Mississippi will become an example to the rest of the states (e.g., Texas, South Carolina, etc.) that have not been traditional open carry states but choose to change that.

As for the LEOs, it’s difficult to change, even when facing the inevitable.  Thus we have scenes like this.

Biloxi Police Chief John Miller holds up a sign he has made to help business owners who wish to keep people from entering their establishments while carrying guns.

But it isn’t within their charge to ensure that weapons aren’t carried in and through Mississippi, concealed or openly.  LEOs and politics don’t mix, and police chiefs can be replaced.

In the end, this stolid judge’s day in the sun will soon go away, guns will be openly carried in Mississippi, the Wild, Wild West will not obtain, and LEOs like Chief John Miller will be ridiculed for their fear mongering.

And everything will be made right.

NBC:

The U.S. Park Police, the law enforcement agency responsible for safeguarding the National Mall and critical American landmarks, has lost track of a large supply of handguns, rifles and shotguns, according to a harshly critical report issued Thursday.

In the report, the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Interior faults staff at the agency for having no idea how many weapons they control and says the department has no clear policies or procedures for investigating missing weapons. The office says top managers, including the police chief, have shown a “lackadaisical attitude toward firearms management.”

While surveying Park Police field office armories, investigators found more than 1,400 extra and unassigned weapons that were intended to be destroyed. They also found 198 handguns that were transferred from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and stored in an operations facility firearms room without being recorded in an inventory system.

There are also instances of officers storing service weapons at their homes, according to the report.

“We found credible evidence of conditions that would allow for theft and misuse of firearms, and the ability to conceal the fact if weapons were missing,” deputy inspector general Mary Kendall wrote to Jonathan Jarvis, the director of the National Park Service, in a letter that accompanies the report.

I’ve said before that I could be blindfolded and allowed to start at my door, and I could walk to every one of my guns in the house, put my hands on each of them, and tell you whether a round is chambered before I ever get there.  If you cannot do that, then you shouldn’t have guns.  It’s sort of like knowing where your medications are, whether the stove is on, or whether your doors are locked.

The only gun control I support is knowing everything about your guns, including how many you have.  This is the most basic of all responsibilities, and if the federal government cannot do this then they should be treated like children and shouldn’t have any guns.  In fact, given their history and tendency towards totalitarianism, maybe they shouldn’t have guns anyway.

Be like Jerry!

Slate:

Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.”

Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

The author, William Saletan, stops short of calling for confiscation, but does want the CDC empowered to collect and analyze more information about gun owners, as well as heavier court involvement in the process of owning guns.  But on the whole, the author does better than many articles concerning at least feigning neutrality.

Communist China does not.

During the dispute, Fan grabbed a tool and bludgeoned his colleague to death. Fan then returned to the factory’s staff dormitory where he had stashed a hunting gun, retrieved the weapon and fled to Shanghai’s Pudong area in an illegal taxi. Fan then killed the vehicle’s driver and used the vehicle to drive back to Baoshan, where the factory is located, killing a soldier in front of a military unit’s barracks and thus obtaining an additional gun. With both weapons, Fan made his way back to the factory and killed another three employees, including the factory’s supervisor, before being subdued by a police officer who was patrolling the area. Four other people were shot and sustained injuries.

Gun control laws in China are some of the strictest in the world, making it difficult for most civilians to legally own firearms.  According to the South China Morning Post, an emergency meeting was held on Sunday by the Ministry of Public Security, which said it was planning to launch a more comprehensive campaign on gun management across the country.

Gun control is what communists do.  They do it reflexively, and it isn’t so much a response to violent incidents as it is refusing to let a crisis go to waste.  It’s all about ensuring a government monopoly on violence.

It’s the same for the very strange Richard Nixon, who, according to reports, was very anti-gun.

“I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?”

Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.” He laced his comments with obscenities, as was typical.

Of course, Nixon didn’t seek to disarm his security staff, just the common folk.  As we’ve discussed before, it’s what the progressives (like the folks at Daily Kos) really want.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it.  The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them.

Back to the Slate article, the author advocates a continuation of the national conversation on guns.  So be it.  But I think this has been a valuable installment.  Slate admitted that mass killings, while a media event, aren’t the “real problem” with guns.  The “real problem” is ownership of handguns at all.

Or in other words, gun control – making laws that only upstanding citizens obey – is the solution of all good social planners to ameliorate the sinfulness of mankind.  It’s what the communists do.

And the horrible Richard Nixon, a statist by nature, advocated exactly the same thing.  Concerning the recent gun control efforts, Senators Manchin and Toomey have seen the “bottom fall out of their approval ratings.”  We ate them for lunch.  It’s always a good palate cleanser to see progressives confess to the truth that in spite of the posturing, it was really all about government control.

I think that the court jester is lying when he says that there are five Senators who want to change their vote on guns.  But if he can round them up, we’ll eat them for dinner.  As for the continued national conversation, bring it.  But I know your real intentions, and I’ll keep my guns.